CAUTIONED

Southland Times, Issue 19278, 24 June 1924, Page 4

CAUTIONED

EXCITED FOOTBALLERS BEFORE THE UNION. STOPPING ROUGH PLAY. The incident in the Star v. Bines rfiateh at Rugby Park on Saturday afternoon, *¥hich led to the referee ordering a player from each team off the field of play, waa a subject for inquiry at the meeting of the Management Committee of the Rugby Union last evening, when the referee and the players concerned appeared to give evidence. As a result of the inquiry both players were placed on the “Caution List.” The referee, Mr Dunbar, stated that th® game was a hard one, and the player® seemed to be getting a little anxious. On the occasion when he ordered the two playera off, Smith was in an aggressive attitud® and although he did. not see him scrik® Agnew, the only conclusion he could com® to was that both players were at tank. The game was such that at that stage h® had to take a firm stand, otherwise tha players might have got beyond control. Agnew appeared to be more on the defensive and Smith had adopted an attitude of aggression. The Chairman: I do not quite see why you ordered Agnew off if he were defending himself to stop a blow. The Referee: A man does not usually strike another unless he has some reason. The Chairman: Then we take it that you ordered him off on the supposition that h® had done something before. Ihe Referee: 1 es! The play was beginning to get a little rough, and I had to take some action to stop it. Mr Geddes inquired whether the referee had seen a prior incident which perhaps in any way led up to the “spar.” The referee replied that he had not. If he had he would not have hesitated to have ordered the players concerned off th. field. The Invercargill player, Smith, said that he waa very sorry for what had happened. He did not know whether he hit Agnew or whether Agnew hit him. The incident took place in the heat of the moment. Ho thought that he was defending himself. He received a good hit from someone, but he did not know who it was. Once, earlier in the game, he received a hit, and he waa told that “they were after him.” He thought it was Agnew. He was quite satisfied with the referee's statement. The Star Club's player, Agnew, said that prior to the incident with Smith two playera were causing trouble at the end of the lineout. He went to separate them, and waa threatened. Smith hit him and he never made any attempt to retaliate. He waa playing in the wing-forward position and Smith came round from the back of the scrum. He took it pretty hard to ba ordered off and he told the referee that he was not to blame. Mr McCarroll asked the referee wbethei he heard either of the two playera use bad language. The referee replied that he had not The Chairman congratulated the referee on the attitude he took up. Although ordering off might create a hardship on some playera it was the only way of putting a stop to rough play. Mr J. Stobo stated that on the statement of the referee there was a considerable amount of doubt as to what had happened. He moved that both playera be placed on the caution list. Mr D. Torrance seconded the motion and, in doing so, stated thal he wished it to be clearly understood that he realised the necessity for backing up referees. The explanation made by the referee was not certain of what took place and before ordering men off the field it was necessary that a referee should be sure of the facts. Other, wise he might penalise the other 14 playera in the team. Mr A. H. Stott said that he desired to commend the referee on the action he took in keeping the game from getting beyond control. Nevertheless it was a little unfortunate that the referee was not clear as to what actually occurred and as to who were the actual culprits. Mr Geddes also supported the motion and commended the action of the referee. It seemed, however, that he was not quite ek% as to what took place, and had stated that he did not see any blow struck. Mr Glass stated that the decision of the referee had to be held. On the circumstances of the case, however, an injustice might be done to one of the players and he would suggest that the circumstances

of the case be mentioned so that if the player concerned came before the Union again, the present caution would not count too harshly against him. Mr W. Carswell said that he heartily supported the referee in trying to stop rough play. There did not, however, appear to be one bit of evidence against Agnew. He had been very favourably impressed with the frank manner in which Smith had given his evidence and in admitting that he had been at fault. He did not see any reason why Agnew should be put on the caution list. Mr J. A. Doig expressed a similar view. Mr A. H. Courtis said that he was of the opinion that the referee had taken the proper course in ordering the two players off. He did not think that they had heard all that Smith knew about it and it appeared to him that a certain amount of evidence was hidden He believed that both men had been offenders, although it did not come out in the evidence.

Mr T. McCarroll submitted that the evidence did not show that Agnew had offended in any particular way, and he did not agree that the referee was right in ordering him off. The chairman (Mr T. Meredith) said that they were placed in an invidious position. They had to support the referee and accept his statement as the correct version of what had happened. In this case it appeared that he had exceeded his duty and he thought that he bad erred in ordering Agnew off and was right in ordering Smith off. If the evidence was sufficient to order a man off the field he did not think the punishment proposed was sufficient. Mr W. Carswell moved as an amendment that Smith be cautioned and that no action be taken against Agnew. Mr Lilburne seconded the amendment. The amendment was lost by five votes to seven and the motion was carried.